Rifts is a narrativist game?

From a recent thread, I've come to some disturbing conclusions about the game Rifts and other games like it, (the whole line of thought originally stemming from an older thread Early roleplaying and the interpretation of scripture). That conclusion is that ambiguity within its rules enables narrativism more than it helps with gamism (or sim).

To quote the thread that inspired this revelation:

Tony wrote: Now I've seen people having these arguments... but the meat of the argument is always out-of-character. Like, they'll argue about whether their paladin gets protection against this or that, but what they're really arguing is whether the GM is letting them play the heroic character they were hoping to. But I've rarely seen the arguments stay healthy and entirely in-character, with people aware on all sides of what is happening.

Our Dog-Boy (Dog-Woman?) Corporal Risha wanted to go see her mother, found mom wasn't home, went to the local Dog-Boy bar, The Fire Hydrant, and proceeded to grill the bouncer, Frank, for information concerning an Underground Railroad for the liberation of Coalition Dog-soldiers. Then she went back home and hung out with her own of her many younger siblings, Marisa.

Our politician's-son turned Wilderness Scout, Devin, went home and likewise grilled the Chief of Security and the family's stablehand (ex-Cavalry) on the existence of an Underground Railroad for ANY detractors from the Coalition.

My character, a flirtatious Southern Belle Ley Line Walker named Beth Fishi (generally called Fishy by the rest of the unit) went off to see her wizard buddies (Tibbles, Joey, and Mari) for some drinking and spell-swapping at the local mage nightclub, The Ivory Tower.

In the middle of all this, it hit me.

We were building the setting ourselves, with little input from the GM.

The Fire Hydrant... Frank the bouncer... the Chief of Security... Risha's siblings... Tibbles, Joey, and Mari... The Ivory Tower... all made up by the players on the spot to add detail and personality to the world we play in. The GM just rolled with it, adding these places and people into the game as quickly as we uttered the words.

Hi Callan,

I'm totally not seeing the Nar angle. Is it possible to throw in some great places for addressing premise in the setting of Rifts? Sure. Same thing with Storyteller games, L5R, and a ton of others. The setting has lots of places for it to happen.

System-wise? No support, and often stuff against such support. The general Palladium system gives no incentive to ever focus resolution on anything relating to Addressing Premise, values issues never affect resolution, and there's no reward for doing so. More importantly, the GM advice that is included usually falls into the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast category...

Remember- Nar requires:
1) Meaningful player input
2) Focus on Premise and addressing it (check how #1 is necessary for #2)

Rifts gives neither. The setting has some neat themes, such as the classic issue of survival against evil outside forces, and what people are willing to do in terms of sacrifice and screwing each other over, racism, self destruction(Juicers), etc. But nothing actually promotes making real statements on any of them in any way.

The argument that your character is a hero can be made from any of the Creative Agenda standpoints-

Gamist: "But my guy is a hero(he should be more powerful, you are circumnavigating the rules and reason I choose these powers)"
Simulationist: "But my guy is a hero(you are violating the canon of the setting by reducing my guy's abilities)"
Narrativist: "But my guy is a hero (you're blocking my input into Premise)"

The reason that Gamist and Narrativist play often seems similar in techniques is that resolution and reward are founded in metagame concepts- they are not based on emulation of canon, genre, or "realism". Both also rely on resolution & reward as the way of encouraging and enforcing their style of play beyond simply canon/genre issues.

If anything, Rifts is a clunky, poorly high powered combat system + some skills ala D&D. Unlike D&D, it never has cried about trying to "balance" things.

Chris

There is system support, but it's hard to see it by the fact its provided by an absence in the system. When a power isn't properly defined, it leaves a black hole in the system which the end user can fill with anything they care to really.

Take spiritual attributes in TROS, which I think it's agreed, support nar in an otherwise very gamist system. SA's give you dice, which helps you overcome challenges. Now, how do you think the player is going to interpret these black holes they are given in the Rifts system? In a beneficial manner of course. Just as beneficially as SA dice are beneficial. Now can they be associated with a narrativist reward?

Well, yes. These holes prompt me to say things like 'My character is so dedicated to being a mind melter, my telekinesis power should do X'. I mean, how else am I going to justify such a statement except in the context of my character? Whether he's a hero or a mind melter or whatever, I need to assert how he's dedicated his life to this stuff...I need to say something about him to get this across.

In terms of meaningful input, the player is defining how the power works for his character, as a direct representation of his characters dedication to his lifestyle.

The argument that your character is a hero can be made from any of the Creative Agenda standpoints-

Gamist: "But my guy is a hero(he should be more powerful, you are circumnavigating the rules and reason I choose these powers)"
Simulationist: "But my guy is a hero(you are violating the canon of the setting by reducing my guy's abilities)"
Narrativist: "But my guy is a hero (you're blocking my input into Premise)"

The reason that Gamist and Narrativist play often seems similar in techniques is that resolution and reward are founded in metagame concepts- they are not based on emulation of canon, genre, or "realism". Both also rely on resolution & reward as the way of encouraging and enforcing their style of play beyond simply canon/genre issues.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, Callan.

Noon wrote: When a power isn't properly defined, it leaves a black hole in the system which the end user can fill with anything they care to really.

interpret these black holes they are given in the Rifts system? In a beneficial manner of course. Just as beneficially as SA dice are beneficial. Now can they be associated with a narrativist reward?

whatever, I need to assert how he's dedicated his life to this stuff...I need to say something about him to get this across.

In terms of meaningful input, the player is defining how the power works for his character, as a direct representation of his characters dedication to his lifestyle.

you to read into the power what it does, because it is not there to just be read. If you want to play, you have to fill out these powers like you have to fill out SA's in TROS.

Hiya,

This conversation is suffering very greatly from the usual problem in this forum: all "could be" and "would be" and no actual play.

Callan, I think you're making a good case for having played Rifts in a Narrativist fashion, and unlike Raven, I can see how "justifying my character's lifestyle" can be a good question underlying play. However, whether I can see it as a possibility is totally uninteresting, from a discourse point of view.

We can't be talking about whether Rifts itself, as a game design, "supports" this. We have to be talking about whether you played Rifts this way.

Best,
Ron

Hi Callan,

I am not arguing that it is impossible to play Rifts Narrativist. Like I said, it has lots of stuff (in Setting) that a Narrativist can have a field day with.

Poorly defined mechanics do not equal support. I've just shown you three examples of potential arguments a player can make from 3 different CA views- and that those arguments are properties of the player, NOT the book as written. Having to argue, renegotiate Social Contract is definitely not support by system.

What you are missing in your comparison to Spiritual Attributes is that they ARE a well defined mechanic, and that is why they support the CA that they do. Anything which increases the probability of certain outcomes in Resolution based on a certain CA's requirements, and/or rewards the group so that it can happen more often, support that CA.

So if we're looking at comparative mechanics, we could say D&D's Kewl Powers to Kill Stuff = XP = More Kewl Powers cycle is the same as TROS's SAs. Because they use the same technique to achieve different things doesn't make them equivalent. One can use a fire to cook food, or to burn down a house. That doesn't make cooking and arson the same thing(and woe to those who cross that line, intentional or not).

Can you show me an example of where the mechanics supports player input and/or addressing of premise by the group? And that overrides and countermands the Illusionist GM's advice as well as the Reward system?

Chris

First, as a disclaimer, I own Rifts and have skimmed it, but I haven't played it. So I can't directly say what agenda(s) it does or doesn't support.

Bankuei wrote: Poorly defined mechanics do not equal support. I've just shown you three examples of potential arguments a player can make from 3 different CA views- and that those arguments are properties of the player, NOT the book as written. Having to argue, renegotiate Social Contract is definitely not support by system.

Bankuei wrote: Can you show me an example of where the mechanics supports player input and/or addressing of premise by the group? And that overrides and countermands the Illusionist GM's advice as well as the Reward system?

Hi John,

I'm not arguing that morality mechanics are at all necessary to produce Nar support. For example, Universalis & HQ both swing from Nar to Sim easily depending on the group and how they choose to use it, and neither make Addressing Premise a requirement.

What I am saying, is that this is an argument similar to "You can do anything with D&D(given enough drift), therefore D&D(as written) does everything well". Undefined powers do not equal player input, impetus to address premise, or reward for addressing premise.

Chris

Ron Edwards wrote:
We can't be talking about whether Rifts itself, as a game design, "supports" this. We have to be talking about whether you played Rifts this way.

Chris,

I'm not sure what difference your seeing in poorly defined rules verses well defined rules. The effect of a poorly defined rule is that it gives a well defined area of ambiguity.

Nar games involve the player injecting their own values into the system. You don't see the system defining exactly what a PC will do when faced with his woman and her secret lover. This is well defined as an area of ambiguity, because it's up to the player to inject his own values into that area. There isn't some D&D-esque alignment system telling you what to do here...that would defeat the purpose of the design. Edit: Ooops, John already said this.

What I am saying, is that this is an argument similar to "You can do anything with D&D(given enough drift), therefore D&D(as written) does everything well".

Can you show me an example of where the mechanics supports player input and/or addressing of premise by the group? And that overrides and countermands the Illusionist GM's advice as well as the Reward system?

Hi folks,

I don't know where I have said, insinuated, or given off the impression that I am arguing that the system has to define every decision or ramrod value judgements down the players' throats. Please stop aiming at the straw man, he never hurt nobody.

Can a solid Nar supporting mechanic leave room for decision, input or creativity? I'd say it's a requirement of player input(check my previous posts). "Create 3 NPCs to whom your character has a strong tie. Get extra 50 happy points when you act towards that tie" doesn't define who those NPCs are, or what the nature of the relationship is- BUT it DOES tell you what to do, and also defines in what regards you do get choice. That's well defined.

If we take a hypothetical, but very close to Rifts like rule, "This power lets a character set fire to things", then we have the issues of range, time to do so, what things can be set on fire, how fast they burn, etc, etc. That's poorly defined. And what that means, as Callan points out- is that it is up to the group to have to fall back to Social Contract to figure out what its going to mean. That does not support any CA at all.

Now, add in that resolution has nothing to deal with addressing premise, nor does reward, and you have something that simply does not support Narrativism. Period. It took me awhile to follow Ron when he pointed out that octaNe wasn't Nar facilitating either(though its easier to drift than many other games).

So, Callan, feel free to show me, either from the Rifts text, or from an example of play (and the interpretation of text), how "My power can do this" produces:

1) Actual player input(not argument)
2) specifically focused on Premise(Not, "Well, it could be on Premise", but how it makes the group focus specifically ON Premise, of any kind)

?

Chris

Excuse me. This thread has turned nasty and I'm tired of reading it.

Shuddup, both of you. Dunk your heads in a horse trough.

Come back to this thread after a day or something. Geez.

Best,
Ron

Heya Chris,

Bankuei wrote: If we take a hypothetical, but very close to Rifts like rule, "This power lets a character set fire to things", then we have the issues of range, time to do so, what things can be set on fire, how fast they burn, etc, etc. That's poorly defined. And what that means, as Callan points out- is that it is up to the group to have to fall back to Social Contract to figure out what its going to mean. That does not support any CA at all.

I've played lots of Rifts. I've also played some Palladium Fantasy, some TMNT, and I've used the converson kits to move characters between these games and Star Wars d6, Dark Conspiracy, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, Twilight 2000, and Merc 2000. I have also moved Rifts characters back and forth to and from Shadowrun 1st edition, GURPS, and Webs by hand. I just thought I'd give that background to establish that I am very comfortable with the system.

I agree that gamism in Rifts can be difficult. It in fact feels strained, and more than one Rifts campaign in which I've been involved has fallen apart or switched the same characters to another system due to people wanting to work towards gamism.

Rifts mechanics don't support Nar really well, either. The text does call for people to decide what's worth fighting for and what's worth dying for, even if only implicitly. It also calls for experience points to be given to plyers who make a good story, come up with novel actions, and step up to big challenges. A little extra XP isn't direct (and most GMs don't consider that too binding). When players reward each other the XP instead of one GM determining who gets it, that helps. There is a little help there, and some minor drift can make Nar work.

What Rifts really supports IMHO is Sim. There are lots of crunchy bits, there's lots of ways to play a character from principles, etc. It doesn't do this really well mechanically, either, as the mechanics don't do anything paricularly well.

I think the mechanics and other parts of the system combined support Sim better than anything, with Nar not far behind if you want to drift that way. There's not much in the mechanics for Nar, but mechanics alone don't make a system.

I'd thought Rifts was sim as well. I was even going to start a post on it, previously. But I'm thinking vanilla narrativism now.

I can see what your saying about the XP reward mechanism not having much focus in any direction.

The thing is, I think of all the 200 to 300 MDC monsters in the game world, and how there really aren't any cool tricks to beating them like you could find in D&D 3E. So you can either pound them to death or they kill you (there is some gamist wiggle room, but it's painfully small IMO).

It's the same in TROS. The severity of combat means your grasping for some means to survive. In Rifts, your grasping for some means to survive (either that or the games a pushover).

In TROS you grab for the SA rules. In Rifts, you look at the rules...and they are full of holes about what your character can do. You grab for the holes.

This could still go sim or gamist, but the fact is the player is filling in what he wants the power to do, and stating it. For gamism? You win because you decided how the pivotal factor works? Lame! For sim? The game world causality works...just however you decided it would at this moment? Feeble causality!

I would really love to see an actual play from Kevin S., the games author. I can supply some indirectly though: A little while ago Kevin killed the ability to dodge shots...he wrote up a big old rant in his magazine (the rifter) about how dodging shots was just so unrealistic...and then completely ignore this rule if the character is saving someone other than themselves.

I'll quote the relevant portion here, emphasis mine (rifter 17, page 24):

Note: For dramatic purposes, I sometimes use the same rules to see if a spell caster or psychic can raise a force field or energy armour or similar barrier in place in time to block the gunshot, especially if the character is trying to save an innocent person other than himself. This rule can also be used for the OCC's noted above, to see if a character can dive and knock the intended target out of harms way. However, the diving hero is likely to get shot in his place. After all, the character is trying to "save" somebody else and his focus and action is devoted to that purpose, making it impossible for "him" (or her) to dodge the attack. I usually reward such heroics by inflicting half the normal damage.

Callan,

Lack of rules or definition does not equate narrativism. This is a point a couple folks have brought up, and I think you've missed it every time. What, specifically, in the RIFTs rules supports "exploring a Premise"? How does the game reward you for exploring a Premise and making Premise-based choices above/ahead of making Gamist or Simulationist ones?

If the answer to the former is "nothing" (and having played RIFTs for a while in the past, that would be my call) then it is not "narrativist", it is "incoherent". Note that TROS is different than RIFTs because every game is about "What are you willing to die for?", which is supported in the deadly combat tied to the SAs which function as XP. That's Nar-facillitative. RIFTs does not have that focus or reward, however.

Perhaps RIFTs it can be Drifted to Nar more easily than Gamism or Sim, but I see no reason why that would be so, either. As a game, its rules, taken as a whole, are definitely not Narrativist-facillitating.

Hey guys,

With the help of a PM, I'm seeing what Callan is driving at. Unfortunately, the thread title is getting in the way.

We are not talking about whether Rifts is a Narrativist-facilitating RPG in the same ways that Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard are.

We are talking about design which is all too obviously going to facilitate (if that's the right word, possibly inflict, induce? no, too active) incoherent play ... and looking at that as a kind of anti-Gamist defense, a forced focus on the SIS perhaps.

My take is that the outcome is more of a stumbly Sim, with Gamist stuff flashing up all over the place and perhaps taking over, at its most coherent (barring major Drift).

In other words, I see your point about the incoherence and what might be called a "hope it happens" design approach toward CA, Callan. I'm not sure that Narrativism per se is really the focus that makes most sense to discuss this phenomenon from, unless we all recognize that it would arise if that's what the group wanted and took some steps to achieve.

Raven and others, I think you guys might do well to back off on the Narrativist issue too. We all know Rifts isn't Dogs. That's not the issue.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Ron

Hrm...indeed, the title does get in the way, in that case. New thread to refocus, perhaps? Or can we get a refocus in this thread and just avoid the "is it/it is Nar" issue altogether as an apparent bugaboo?

The title by itself is missleading. In terms of 'system does matter' I'd taken it if a game is incoherant, whatever CA it gets closest to facilitating mechanically, is the CA it's closest to supporting (if user add ons are introduced...which would require the user to be inclined toward the CA the add ons assist). A title like 'Rifts is closest to facilitating nar?' might help clear things up, beyond what was noted about add ons.

Ron, I think you've mentioned the Champions RPG before, and how by ignoring certain parts, it could facilitate any creative agenda. Which CA required ignoring the least amount of parts?

In that case your ditching components. I'm assuming its valid to judge which CA champions was closest to, by how few parts you had to ignore to facilitate a particular CA (if it isn't valid, we should get into that). For Rifts I'm looking at a glass half full version...what CA would require the least amount of rules add ons to be facilitated? The anti gamist design certainly makes the number of add ons required to facilitate gamism, very high.

Hi Callan,

It's an interesting thesis, but I'm not sure I agree. All of the following is just food for thought.

1. Number of components ignored is going to be a squishy variable, because the better currency might be the effort to ignore, if any.

In the case of my Champions experience, I and a few of the folks I played with considered it "effortless" to ignore/disallow the power Damage Reduction. This was considered pure and simple cheating by others, and to ignore the "rule," as they saw it, was an act which must have taken immense effort and intent to "change the game."

I also don't want to lose the point that adding emphasis to certain rules was also part of the picture. It's not just a matter of ignoring stuff. A good example is the role of NPC-based Disadvantages, mainly Hunted and DNPC. Depending on how the group interpreted them, they were either Hooks or Kickers - but to do either meant adding elements of prep and interpersonal interaction during play which were not explicit in the rules.

2. If a person is not especially inclined to the Exploration-heavy form of Gamist play, then it's hard to recognize that many "anti-Gamist" rules in many games are actually honey to Gamists. Imagine a long but shallow trench, as a barrier. Ever-present, but easy to get across. Now imagine that different portions of its length have different secondary elements, like guard dogs or booby-traps or whatever. But the trench (and most importantly the boundary) is still there.

So which if these two situations do you think will be more fun for the Step On Up process? Particularly if each of the secondary "don't" elements is hampered by a need to justify it in Explorative terms?

As many of us have learned, the only solution to disincentivizing Gamist play is simply not to have that boundary at all - just structure the reward system so the whole terrain is unsuitable for it.

So my suggestion is that this sort of approach to saying "no Gamist!" is actually quite appealing to Gamist play of a certain kind, the kind which makes extensive use of "it would" or other justificatory logic as a moment-to-moment tactic.

You, or I, or any number of other people who aren't inclined toward this particular brand might see all the barriers as stuff to ignore if you want to play Gamist. But the folks who are inclined in this way will see it as "interesting and dangerous ground."

That's the reason I've referred to Rifts as favoring Gamist play in the past. Not all Gamist play, to be sure.

And again, none of this is intended to refute your point. It provides some perspective on the topic, I hope.

Best,
Ron

Heya Ron,

That's the reason I've referred to Rifts as favoring Gamist play in the past. Not all Gamist play, to be sure.

Hi Callan,

H'm. I must say I'm pretty allergic to talking about author intent in just about any and every context imaginable. At least when dealing with a given playable game, as opposed to a design in progress and dialogue with the actual author.

It seems to me that author's intent is not so important as the game's textual ability to reward a given agenda brought to it by others. So that's where I tend to focus my attention.

Others may differ in their tastes of what to discuss about texts and authors, so I'll let that sort of discussion carry on without really getting too invested in it.

Regarding the brand of Gamism we're talking about, you can probably find some juicy comments about it in my essay, now that you're oriented toward what to look for. Note the "bitterest gamer in the world" section.

Speaking only from experience and observation, but not generalizing, I suggest that such Gamism may well have Simulationist moments or underpinnings, bordering on or even being hybrid (if such is possible). However, I will also point out that winning/losing in this Gamist context often involves, not high fives, but determining who's forced to sulk more. Some of us may find this brand a bit distasteful, bordering as it does on "control of the SIS" at the Social Contract / Explorative boundary.

Best,
Ron

Heya Ron,

Fair enough on the author intent. I think your focus is more like looking at what a machine does once it's out in the field. I'm sort of trying to do that as well, but as I watch the machine limp along on land I'm thinking 'Hey, maybe the designer meant it to go into the water? Well just put a cork in that hole there and...now that I'm lowering it into the water, I can already see it zooming along now!'

Rifts got under my skin some time ago and I find it compelling. But compelling me to do what? What's is/isn't it doing? Can I replicate what it is doing myself, mechanically? It's like trying to figure out some ancient language or something.

However, I will also point out that winning/losing in this Gamist context often involves, not high fives, but determining who's forced to sulk more.